Supreme Court judgment of 15 January 2026 on Article 62 of the Insurance Act

This recent judgment by the Supreme Court (Court of Cassation, Case No. C.24.0470.N) clarifies the interpretation of the provisions in the law of 4 April 2014 on insurance (the ‘Insurance Act’) relating to the exclusion of cover for damage resulting from intentional acts in insurance policies.
 
Pursuant to Article 62, par. 1 of the Insurance Act, and notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the insurer cannot be obliged to provide cover to someone who has deliberately caused a loss. In order for the insurer to be released from cover on this basis, it is necessary but sufficient that the insured has voluntarily and deliberately intended to cause the damage through his actions or omissions. The fact that the insured did not intend the nature or extent of the damage is irrelevant.
 
The defendant in these proceedings rented a residence, for which he had taken out a fire insurance and a civil liability policy. The property was ravaged by fire in January 2017, which the defendant at first claimed was accidental but later admitted to having started with the intention of committing suicide. The fact that the insured started a fire with the aim of committing suicide does not preclude his having deliberately caused the damage resulting from the fire.
 
In the contested judgment by the Ghent Court of appeal, the appellate judge considered that while the individual who commits suicide, or attempts to do so, does have the intention to cause damage, i.e. his own death, he did not thereby intend to cause damage resulting from the occurrence of a risk covered by the fire insurance policy: even if the fire was deliberately set, there was no intent within the meaning of Article 62 of the Insurance Act. 
 
The Supreme Court, however, notes that the mere fact that the insured deliberately started a fire with the primary aim of committing suicide does not imply there was an absence of intent on his part to cause the fire. Absence of intent can be illustrated by earlier case law, e.g. a situation in which an insured attempted to commit suicide by overdosing on medication, then lighted a cigarette and slipped into unconsciousness, accidentally lighting a fire: in this instance, there was no deliberate intent to start a fire as such and thus no grounds to deny coverage. When, on the other hand, the insured deliberately causes the insured fire risk, the mere fact that his intention is (also) to cause other damage (his death) does not preclude the application of Article 62, par. 1 of the Insurance Act. Hence, there is no legal ground to claim absence of intent.
 
The Supreme Court set aside the contested judgment, referring the case back to the Antwerp Court of appeal. For full details, see here.
 
Questions? Contact our Insurance expert Sandra Lodewijckx.